Learning Through Hypothesis Refinement Using Answer Set Programming
Recent work has shown how a meta-level approach to inductive logic programming, which uses a semantic-preserving transformation of a learning task into an abductive reasoning problem, can address a large class of multi-predicate, nonmonotonic learning in a sound and complete manner. An Answer Set Programming (ASP) implementation, called ASPAL, has been proposed that uses ASP fixed point computation to solve a learning task, thus delegating the search to the ASP solver. Although this meta-level approach has been shown to be very general and flexible, the scalability of its ASP implementation is constrained by the grounding of the meta-theory. In this paper we build upon these results and propose a new meta-level learning approach that overcomes the scalability problem of ASPAL by breaking the learning process up into small manageable steps and using theory revision over the meta-level representation of the hypothesis space to improve the hypothesis computed at each step. We empirically evaluate the computational gain with respect to ASPAL using two different answer set solvers.
KeywordsAnswer Set Programming Hypothesis refinement
This work is partially funded by the 7th Framework EU-FET project 600792 ALLOW Ensembles and the EPSRC project P44745.
- 3.Corapi, D.: Nonmonotonic inductive logic programming as abductive search. Ph.D. thesis, Imperial College London (2011)Google Scholar
- 4.Corapi, D., Russo, A., Lupu, E.: Inductive logic programming as abductive search. In: Hermenegildo, M., Schaub, T. (eds.) Technical Communications of the 26th International Conference on Logic Programming (2010)Google Scholar
- 7.Dimopoulos, Y., Kakas, A.: Learning non-monotonic logic programs: learning exceptions. In: Lavrač, N., Wrobel, S. (eds.) ECML 1995. LNCS, vol. 912, pp. 122–137. Springer, Heidelberg (1995) Google Scholar
- 9.Katzouris, N., Artikis, A., Paliouras, G.: Incremental learning of event definitions with inductive logic programming. CoRR abs/1402.5988 (2014)Google Scholar
- 10.Kimber, T.: Learning definite and normal logic programs by induction on failure. Ph.D. thesis, Imperial College London (2012)Google Scholar
- 16.Muggleton, S.H., Lin, D.: Meta-interpretive learning of higher-order dyadic datalog: predicate invention revisited. In: IJCAI (2013)Google Scholar
- 18.Sakama, C.: Nonmonotonic inductive logic programming. In: Eiter, T., Faber, W., Truszczyński, M. (eds.) LPNMR 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2173, pp. 62–80. Springer, Heidelberg (2001) Google Scholar
- 21.Stahl, I.: Predicate invention in inductive logic programming. In: De Raedt, L. (ed.) Advances in Inductive Logic Programming, pp. 34–47. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1996)Google Scholar
- 22.Wrobel, S.: First order theory refinement. In: De Raedt, L. (ed.) Advances in Inductive Logic Programming, pp. 14–33. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1996)Google Scholar